@Mithrandir well in the army we had the most disgusting stuff I've ever knew/saw/used.... called גריז. I don't get disgusted easily as you probably know but man.... I couldn't touch that awful thing! lol

NAA handling used to be nearly instant, with usually next to nothing in the VLQ review queue. Mod flags took a few hours, and I probably haven't had a pending mod flag last days in a really long time. That has started happening again. It might be a combination of missing motivation, fewer mods, and a higher workload on meta, but it's still noticeable.

So - one underlying issue is,well the need to find a profit center. Which lead to both that focus on careers over Q&A. Ads worked before and is easy - but having your own ads team is a lot more difficult than leveraging an external org

Just before experiment was over CV queue was under 4K, sometimes even under 3K. Reopen queue was not overwhelmed. Now two week after experiment ended CV queue is back on 7K or more. I don't need any other numbers to say experiment was successful. 3 close votes are better than 5. — Dalija Prasnikar3 mins ago

Indeed, what other statistics could be used to decide whether the experiment was a success.

@Shog9 How would the data look like if close reviews only required two "Leave Open" reviews to dismiss from the queue, instead of three? (Assume a question wouldn't have been closed if the review task received the Close review corresponding to the final close vote after it had already received two Leave Open-s.)

In the past, weighted close votes (based on tag score/badges) were shot down because it'd be confusing to see questions closed by n users with variable n. But during the experiment, there were 3-, 4-, 5- user closures all the time, and nothing exploded.